


My World of Ice and Fire

by solitariusvirtus



Category: A Song of Ice and Fire - George R. R. Martin, Essay - Fandom
Genre: Abuse, Battering, Character Analysis, Could be writing, Essays, Marital Abuse, Not particularly Elia friendly, Other, R plus L equals J, Shorts chapters, Targaryens are white supremacists, Varied Topics, could be anything really, could be archeology, there are no differences between men and women
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2016-06-15
Updated: 2017-07-24
Packaged: 2018-07-15 06:37:20
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 12
Words: 21,457
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/7211894
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/solitariusvirtus/pseuds/solitariusvirtus
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>A collection of small pieces discussing fragments of Westerosi culture.</p>
            </blockquote>





	1. Three Funerary Traditions In Westeros

 

 

It has been observed that several types of funeral (methods of dealing with the body of the deceased) exist in Westeros, differing according to both region and period. There have been several such forms recorded in Martin’s books; ship burial, cremation and interment to name them. And while each of these may be explained by situational reasons, they also reveal something about the beliefs of those practicing them. Simply put, the way the bodies of the dead are treated reflects the subliminal views on transcendence throughout Westeros.

The easiest two to discuss are the cremation and the interment, as the implications of these methods are quite clear. The ship burial represents itself as more ambiguous, containing within the same ceremony both fire and water. That said, burial and cremation shall be discussed first and ship burial will follow.  

Burial, as well as entombment is practiced in many areas of Westeros by important families (e.g.: the Starks, the Lannisters). The main characteristic of this procedure is that the body remains intact, a physical reality, even after the soul has supposedly departed. This particular practice is not unlike the Christian or Judaic tradition of burying the dead. Whether they are put in cairns or whether a bigger construction is made for them has little relevance. But to claim this tradition is in its entirety Christian or Judaic would be wrong. The custom of burying one’s dead comes from ancient Indo-European culture, where the supreme deities reigning were Father Sky and Mother Earth (West, 166-177) and it has been attested as far back as the fourth millennium B.C.E. (West, 388; see also Gimbutas sources of I.-E. cultures). The deity reigning over the realm of the dead is Mother Earth and death is essentially a return and indeed most peoples have carved for themselves an image of the afterlife fairly similar to that of life (e.g.: When Theo has a vision of the afterlife, it is actually a manner of hall he sees where all the people he knew and those he did not know had gathered together) – but that is stepping ahead of ourselves; concepts and representations of the afterlife will be treated separately in a work all of its own.

In ancient times, people set a location for burying their dead. I propose the following reasons: they are not moving from one place to another; they wish to keep their departed loved one close by; and they believe that the human entity is not only soul and not mere flesh, but both; burying one’s dead in a certain location is a statement of possession, reinforcing a common idea of belonging to a geographical space where one’s ancestors can still be found. It also implies a belief in the survival of both soul and body after physical death, or at the very least some use of the body thereafter. Therefore, if the human as a whole is composed by a spiritual subunit and a material element, which are co-dependent, one unable to exist without the other, it would make sense that even in death these two would still have some need of each other (think on the Christian principle of Judgment Day where the body and soul are reunited into one single whole).

It is possible that the same explanation applies to the Westerosi tradition of burying the dead. The First Men did it and although we are currently unaware of their religious beliefs before the Children converted them, the distinct possibility remains that they worshiped a deity of the earth, thus giving their dead into its protection – the issue here would be to find a reliable source of information on the funerary habits of the First Men. With no source available and considering that Martin does draw inspiration from mostly European tradition, one would not be far off in assuming that the First Men indeed worshiped a deity of the earth as, from a historic perspective, the general consensus is that celestial gods supplanted the latter mentioned class in importance only from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age forth (West, 498).

Interment suggests one problematic aspect in the _ASOIAF_ universe: the resurrection of the dead. While Christian and Judaic tradition sees this second life as given by a benevolent entity, in Martin’s fictional world it is seemingly the Others/White Walkers who make the bodies rise. The main difference is that the Wights (resurrected bodies) seem soulless creatures. Whatever animates them acts like some sort of parasite that takes over an empty vessel. These walking dead show no sign of recognising persons they have known in their previous life, nor do they produce speech. It is as if all powers of cognition have fled along with their soul. Which begs the question – how do they resurrect the bodies? If there is ever to be an answer to that, we will likely understand all the better why funeral rites are carried out in such a manner.   

Another type of ritual is cremation. By contrast with the earlier tradition, the body is neutralised by giving it to the flames. Many a people have embraced this practice in our own universe, and in the _ASOIAF_ world too. Notably among these are the Targaryens and the Wildlings (we shall not count the Dothraki here, as they are not of Westeros). While the Wildlings have a thoroughly necessity based motivation, the Targaryens are likely more tied to their own tradition passed down from Old Valyria – perhaps as a alternative to inhumation, although the costs of a funeral pyre in terms of wood are quite high.

The main reason for which the Wildings burn their dead is that should they allow the carcasses to remain unburned the deceased would rise and war with the living. The events in the _ASOIAF_ series is not the first war of this kind and likely it has remained a deeply rooted tradition for the free folk to burn the dead, being seen as both practical and good.

Such a practice is most popular among nomad peoples and those who tend to worship entities of the sky. In such traditions the human may be body and soul, but the soul is dominant and the body which contains it acts as a prison of sorts (the idea is ever-present in the Anglo-Saxon epic _Beowulf_ in which the body is a “bone-house”, ergo a prison for the soul). The consummation of the flesh by fire is believed to set the soul free, thus the practice is seen as preferable to burial (the belief is outlined in Ibn Fadlan’s encounter with the Rus people and his description of a Viking chief’s funeral – Montgomery, 1-25).

 _One of the Rusiyyah stood beside me and I heard him speaking to my interpreter. I quizzed him about what he had said, and he replied, “He said, ‘You Arabs are a foolish lot!’” So I said, “Why is that?” and he replied, “Because you purposely take those who are dearest to you and whom you hold in highest esteem and throw them under the earth, where they are eaten by the earth, by vermin and by worms, whereas we burn them in the fire there and then, so that they enter Paradise immediately.” Then he laughed loud and long. I quizzed him about that <i.e., the entry into Paradise> and he said, “Because of the love which my Lord feels for him. He has sent the wind to take him away within an hour.” _(Montgomery, 20)

While there is no definite evidence that the people of Old Valyria were nomadic, at some point migrations might have taken place, prompting them to adopt this certain type of burial (although the shepherd-tribes they evolved from might well have travelled the length of Essos).   

The veiled belief implied by this tradition is that a resurrection of the body is not possible (or not necessary) and thus keeping the corpse is not to be desired. Moreover, one may trap the soul of the deceased into the flesh if they do not burn it, prolonging the journey to the afterlife. Therefore, burning the dead is liberating and proper in accordance to such a system of beliefs.

In GRRM’s work there are of course the White Walkers to consider. Besides the purpose of setting the soul free, burning the deceased is also a form of protection against the corruption of otherworldly beings with harmful intentions towards humanity. Thus it can only be a plus to such a people, as they would never have to suffer a forcible usage of their bodies after death.

Last, but not least, I would like us to take a look at the ship burial. It is practiced by Tullys and there is one such example in Martin’s work, the funeral of Hoster Tully. Hoster was placed on a ship, which not only carried his body, but worldly riches as well. The ship was set afloat after which it was set on fire. The belief of an afterlife set somewhere beneath an ocean, near it or a body of water is not uncommon and appears in various mythologies (the Greek, Celtic and Vedic tradition making mentions of it) and can be tied to a seafaring people (West, 390), which while the Tullys are not, they do rule over the Riverlands, thus the tie to water is understandable.  

While I cannot be sure that is the case for the Riverlands tradition, some people have been shown to believe that while the dead no longer exist on a plane with the living, they continue on another plane, but not merely as spirits. Their body is transferred as well. That might be the reason for which they are given riches, food and clothing. It seems to be the case of a great many cultures, even practiced by early Christians in the case of important figures of the Church and for noblemen. We have the likes of Saint Gildas to look to – his request for a funeral went as such:

 _Per Christum vos filios meos moneo, ne contendatis pro corporis meis cadavere, sed mox ut spiritum exhalavero, tollite me et in navim deponentes supponite humeris meis lapidem illum, super quem recumbere siolitus eram; nemo autem ex vobis in navis mecum remaneat, sed impellents eam in mare permittite ire, quo Deus voluerit […]_ (Scragg, 43-44).

 [“I charge you through Christ, my sons, not to contend for the remains of my body; but as soon as I have given up the spirit, bear me away, lay me down in a ship, and under my shoulders place the stone on which I was wont to lie down. Let no on of you remain with me on the ship, but push the ship into the sea, and let it drift whither God willeth.”] (Scragg, 44)  

Of course the custom of burying grave goods with the deceased was slowly eroded. However the very existence of them implies that another life awaits them, one very similar to that of the living, with the same necessities, values and norms. The buried site presumed to belong to Rædwald, an Anglo-Saxon earl and very important figure in the Anglo-Saxon political landscape of his time, features a ship with a timber where the body of the deceased had been placed along with grave goods such as garments, shoes, toilet items, drinking horns, weapons and cooking ware (Carver 2004, 500). It is only to be expected that those close to the deceased would see the person well provided for their journey to the afterlife with the necessary tools – and the choices made here indicate a belief in an otherworld at least very close to our own.

The reason for the ship to be set on water is unclear. It might point to the fact that humans are more water than solid substance. Therefore, the proper medium to return them to is water (a departure then from earlier beliefs) or water, by its very nature, could signify easier access to the afterlife.

With this I conclude my little analysis. It would be interesting to find out more about the reasoning behind the different types of funeral present in Martin’s books, as explained by the author.  

 

 

###### Works Cited:

Carver, Martin. 2004. “Sutton Hoo.” in _Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. – A.D. 1000. Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World._ Vol. 2 _,_ edited by Peter Bogucki and Pam J. Crabtree, 498-500. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Montgomery, James E. 2000. "Ibn Fadlan and the Rusiyyah" in Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies Vol. 3 (2000), 1-25.

Scragg, Donald. 2003. _Textual and Material Culture in Anglo-Saxon England. Thomas Northcote Toller and the Toller Memorial Lectures._ Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.

West, M.L. 2007. _Indo-European Poetry and Myth._ Oxford: Oxford University Press.

**Further readings:**

Daly, Kathleen N. and Rengel, Marian. 2003. _Norse Mythology from A to Z._ New York: Facts On File.

Fisher, Genevieve. 2004. “Anglo-Saxon England.” in _Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. – A.D. 1000. Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World._ Vol. 2 _,_ edited by Peter Bogucki and Pam J. Crabtree. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Hills, Catherine. 2004. “Spong Hill.” in _Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. – A.D. 1000. Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World._ Vol. 2 _,_ edited by Peter Bogucki and Pam J. Crabtree. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Ariès, P. 1981. _The Hour of Our Death_. London: Penguin Books.

Gennep, Arnold van. 1960. The Rites of Passage _._ Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Gimbutas, Marija. 1971. _Ancient Peoples and Places. The Slavs_ Vol. 74. London: Thames and Hudson.

Holloway, James. 2010. “Material Symbolism and Death: Charcoal Burial in Later Anglo-Saxon England” in _Burial in Later Anglo-Saxon England. C. 650-1100 AD_ , edited by Jo Buckberry and Annia Cherryson. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 

Williams, Howard. 2006. _Death and Memory in Early Medieval Britain._ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> Between shitposting, YouTube feuds and life in general, I sometimes do do research to make valid points on matters.


	2. Cersei and Rhaegar

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> Opinion piece

Considerations on a possible Cersei-Rhaegar marriage are not lacking. The topic can be seen from various perspectives and this here is just one of them. Granted, it’s the one I hold to be the most accurate, but it does not invalidate others if sufficient proof is provided.

Cersei Lannister was born the first child of Joanna and Tywin Lannister, just a bit earlier than Jaime. Naturally, growing up together with her twin, they were inseparable, thus very close. It is even mentioned that they used to share a bed in their childhood. It this same period of childhood that Cersei’s frustrations are born. By witnessing the different ways in which she and her brother are treated, Cersei assumes that men, because they are more powerful, are free to do as they wish. Remember if you will that episode when Cersei put on Jaime’s clothes in order to learn how to wield a sword. Tywin made short work of her dashing plan, thus proving her incapable of controlling her own actions. He was the first to show her that without _power_ she has no _freedom_. Note that when she confronts Ned Stark her words are: “A true man does what he will, not what he must.” _(A Game of Thrones_ , Chapter 45, Eddard). Her creed is clear enough: **want takes precedence over duty**. Cersei wants to please herself before anyone else and in a way that is natural. Most of us do want to please ourselves before others. However, one should not pretend that such an attitude is conductive to a relationship.

Her relationship with Jaime is proof of that too. Think if you will, that they reflect one another, much like a mirror. They were twins – they shared everything from family and home to sexual experiences. “Jaime and I are more than brother and sister. We are one person in two bodies. We shared a womb together. He came into this world holding my foot, our old maester said. When he is in me, I feel… whole (…),” she tells Eddard _(A Game of Thrones_ , Chapter 45, Eddard). This puts me in the mind of the **whole human being, the androgyny** we have encountered in myths and lore. Cersei and Jaime balance each other until the point where Cersei tries to be Jaime. The balance is broken – the androgyny ripped apart.

I should point out that Cersei seemed to be more in love with the idea of loving Jaime rather than truly loving him. And this can be applied to her relationship with other men as well. Consider only that while Jaime was faithful to their commitment, Cersei was not and I speak outside her marriage to Robert, as that cannot possibly construe cheating on her part. And why should she be otherwise when in her eyes Jaime is getting the better deal? Why should she feel inclined to be kind to any one man when the lot of them spite her by having “freedom”. (Although one must point out that freedom is relative; it depends on what one considers it to mean, e.g. if one thinks that freedom is doing just as one likes then those men Cersei so envies were not free at all.)

Next I would like to visit the episode of the prophecy. Cersei asks Maggy the Frog when she would wed the prince. Her question was not when she would wed Rhaegar, but the prince. Clearly, she thought of him as a position first and only after a human being. Needless to say, it was her family, Genna specifically, who told her she would marry Rhaegar and she was **infatuated** with him. The word derives from the root **fatuous** which means **silly** , **inane**. That characterises Cersei’s feelings for Rhaegar. She met him when she was a little girl; he wouldn’t have even looked at her as a potential spouse. Yet she built a whole fantasy world on uncertain predictions made by her aunt and the ambitions of her father. As it turns out, the King refuses the match. Not because he does not like Cersei, but because, mad as he was, Aerys knew not to put more power in the hands of House Lannister – by his way of thinking, if Tywin loved power so much, he could only spite the man by taking the chance of ultimate power away from him.

Marriage in medieval times, which inspires the marriages in Westeros, was not based upon love. Love within one’s marriage is a relatively new concept, belonging to modern times. Marriage was an alliance between wealth and power and social positions in order to sustain a family, financially most likely, and to further one’s political agenda if it existed. Nothing more and nothing less. Love was not a prerequisite. It really is what it looks like. Whether or not the spouses could live amiably together was up to them. That is to say, one can learn to cooperate with one’s mate and make something of the marriage or one can go on and be bitter about it. It is by no means an easy choice, but given that this is a matter in which the choice belong to the family (the head of it anyway), to suppose the ill-intent of one side (which let’s face it is usually the husband’s side) is simply ludicrous.

That aside, even as a child Cersei showed a certain bent towards the nefarious. She was joined in Maggy’s tent by Melara Heatherspoon, allegedly a friend of hers. When Melara asked if she would wed Jaime, Maggy answered that she would die that very night. Furthermore, she claimed that death was close to Melara, identifying it as a **she**. Now death is sometimes associated with the female gender in some European cultures, but for the Nordic people, death is actually masculine, a **he.** The phrasing strongly suggests that death will come at the hands of the girl next to Melara – that is Cersei, of course. And if that is the way she acts towards her friends, what might one say about enemies left to her tender mercies? Melara did die that night. She drowned in a well, Cersei having been the only other person with her at that time, the reasonable conclusion is that even if Cersei did not push her in the well, she still stood by and did nothing as her friend was drowning. She was less than twelve then, and I understand why some would defend her actions by saying she knew no better, but I don’t accept such a defence – any human with a shred of empathy should be capable of reaching the conclusion that killing or letting someone die without any attempt to help is not something one should do.

Here, I would like to bring in Tyrion ( _Game of Thrones,_ the TV series) reminiscing about Cersei having a girl beaten until she lost one of her eyes when they were children, allegedly over a necklace the girl had “stolen”. And Cersei was not that old herself, he would have us believe. Thieves were usually hanged, I know, so a beating might seem sensible, but who is to say the girl actually stole the necklace? Because the accusation comes from the same person who either murdered or allowed her friend to die over a prophecy one cannot be certain is even true.

My point is, Cersei is a brutal, mean-spirited, a spoiled and selfish person. That is her core. She is not a good person. So it would be quite impossible for her to change her own nature, especially without any sort of encouragement from those around her. **Love does not change people**. It most certainly didn’t alter Cersei’s character, but seems to have further perverted it into some form of entitlement.

Let us look at her marriage. She wedded Robert to become Queen. To claim that she loved him even for even one moment is simply untrue. Cersei liked the way he looked – that is it. Robert was handsome in his youth and he appeared as a wholesome person to the world. That he hid behind that veneer a condemnable character is no less than Cersei herself did; but this is in essence a world of appearances where the important thing is to “look” right, not necessarily act it. The woman sleeping with her own brother (make no mistake, she had been sleeping in a sexual manner with Jaime since they were very young children) is incredulous that her new husband dares to not forget the woman he supposedly loved (though I have my misgiving with this too – but if Robert truly believed he loved Lyanna, he would be acting in accordance to that “love”).   

Robert was a bad husband. There is no possible excuse for his behaviour towards Cersei. But she did not treat him any better. Yes, he cheated on her constantly; she paid him back with his own coin – she made three bastards with her brother. He raised his hand at her, she planned his death. The relationship between these two is based on hatred, but they lived with it many years together. Had Cersei not felt threatened by Eddard finding out her secret, it is likely that she would have spared Robert – not because she cared, but because, believe it or not, plotting is not an easy job. Yet again I have to point out that when power is not within her grasp, Cersei is uneasy. Coupled with her innate cruelty, it is little wonder she is as abusive as she is.

Cersei is liked a spoiled child. The more power allotted to her, the more she wants. Furthermore she herself admits to having played roles all her life: “I waited, and so can he. I waited half my life. She had played the dutiful daughter, the blushing bride, the pliant wife. She had suffered Robert’s drunken groping, Jaime’s jealousy, (…)” ( _A Feast for Crows_ , Chapter 24, Cersei). Men are tools to her; they are objects to be used and then discarded. They are steps on a ladder which she must climb for at its end awaits power. I understand why she would think in that way, but as for condoning such a thought process; that is ridiculous.

But what about her children? Doesn’t she love them? Isn’t that her redeeming quality? Yes, Cersei loves her children. This cannot be refuted. But even this love is a selfish one. When Tommen is crowned, Cersei will not relinquish her position as regent, she will not listen to him, she will not let him grow. She did the same with Joffrey, and we all know how he turned out. Myrcella, on the other hand, is of little political consequence, thus Cersei’s attention to her daughter is limited. I’m not saying that she does not love them – because, again, Cersei loves her children; at the very least on the basis of the benefits they bring – but she would not shy away from using them to further her own agenda.    

I won’t be discussing here her rivalry with Sansa, Margaery, possibly Daenerys. I will instead try to analyse a possible relationship between Rhaegar and herself.

I don’t doubt that Rhaegar would have been a kinder husband than Robert, or at least an acceptable one in the sense that we have so far not heard of him being abusive, physically that is . But Rhaegar would have likely not loved her. Cersei couldn’t stand Robert because he was not dazzled by her on their wedding night – that was the initial falling out, and then came other instances that further confirmed the expectation she had formed on her wedding night. Cersei’s marriage was a ruin from the beginning, but a marriage involves two people, one must point out. To blame everything solely on Robert is unfair. Think only, if the man she is not emotionally invested in refusing her his love gets that reaction from her, what would she do if a man she did “love” did not share the feeling. And I think Rhaegar would have not “loved” her in the sense she wished to be loved.

Bear in mind that Elia was described as kind and gentle (I don’t put much stock by this description, but it is the one we have so it is the one I use), Lyanna was stubborn and somewhat wild, yet also gentle, never did anyone say about her that she was unkind (the Howland Reed incident being proof of kindness, or at least some sense of it). The women Rhaegar liked were very different from Cersei, and I mean this in a psychological manner. Beauty alone does not create an instant love bond. Cersei, on the other hand, has proven time and again that she is a callous, entitled and generally unpleasant person.

If anyone thinks that these are attributes that befit a Queen, well, that’s on them. If Rhaegar wanted to fulfil a prophecy, wanted that more than anything else, Cersei had different goals from the very start. She would have been an impediment and he, despite possibly treating her with respect, would not have been able to give her what she craved – dominance over him and through that power over the Seven Kingdoms. And she would have had to live with that. In the end she would’ve grown to resent Rhaegar, as humans tend to generally do when they are constantly being let down. And that can only breed even more resentment, on both sides.

She would have hated being married to Rhaegar, as much as she hated being married to Robert. So I personally don’t think for one single moment she would have ended too differently from what Martin paints her as.    

That said, if someone chooses to write Cersei/Rhaegar, any such consideration should not be an impediment. To be clear, this is not an anti-C/R manifesto, just an opinion.

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> If anyone has a topic to suggest, please do so: I am currently working on gods in Westeros and maybe I'll treat the afterlife depictions as well, depending on time.


	3. The Curious Case of the Crypt-Wolf

 

 

 

 

 

 

_“He dreamt he was back in Winterfell, limping past the stone kings on their thrones. Their grey granite eyes turned to follow him as he passed, and their grey granite fingers tightened on the hilts of the rusted swords upon their laps. **You are no Stark** , he could hear them mutter, in heavy granite voices. There is no place for you here.[…] But **it was only a direwolf, grey and ghastly,**_ _**spotted** _ **_with blood, his golden eyes shining sadly_ ** _through the dark[…]” – A Storm of Swords_

_“Never ask me about Jon… **He is my blood** and that is all you need to know.” – A Game of Thrones_

I feel like speculating a bit today as well, so here I have presented two quotes which I shall try to make sense of to prove that the wolf Jon saw in his dream might not be Robb’s Grey Wind.

Dreams are never terribly reliable, still when one considers that little is without meaning in the _ASOIAF_ universe, attention to dreams can yield surprising results. The part about the direwolf may seem obvious, given that at this point in the book Robb is dead and Grey Wind has followed the same path. But could it be that the wolf might not be Grey Wind?

Let us look at Jon’s reaction. He thinks about Summer when presented with the direwolf’s image, but one might wonder, hasn’t Jon been with Robb in Winterfell just a short time before, the wolves growing up together? And if so, baring the possibility of them being kept apart at all times or for the most part, is it possible that Jon’s memory cannot retain what Robb’s would looked like? Grey direwolves tend to have golden eyes (or so we are given to believe based on the cases we have seen so far). When one considers the following: Summer’s fur is silver-grey, while Grey’s Wind is smoky grey and Nymeria’s eyes are dark gold and here fur is grey and Lady fits the description as well.

Then let us add to this the fact that out of the six direwolves only two present marked differences, Ghost and Shaggydog. It seems to be the case, based on our limited sample, that direwolves tend to have grey fur and golden eyes – so these traits must be dominant. With this in mind the association of House Stark with a grey direwolf should begin to make sense. If the grey direwolf is the common sort of direwolf, it stands to reason the more common representation would be as such as well. It is understandable that some would think differentiating between the wolves would be difficult, but Jon actually spend a lot of time in their presence, so to suppose he could not do it is not entirely plausible when Theon, for example, does recognize Grey Wind – with both he and Jon having spent roughly the same amount of time around the beast.

In Theon’s dream is _ACOK_ the following is given to us in that regard, _“[…] Robb came walking out of the night. Grey Wind stalked beside, eyes burning, and man and wolf alike bled from half a hundred savage wounds.”_ If Theon could recognise Grey Wind, why couldn’t Jon have done the same? Could it be that he had just encountered Summer not too long ago, or that despite having grey fur and yellow eyes, the direwolf he saw did not resemble Grey Wind all that much? A close colour scheme would pose a problem if someone did not know the wolves well. But to Jon who more or less watched them grow that would not be the case; at the very least he would be able to tell the difference between Summer and Grey Wind. It is reasonable then to assume that the wolf is not in fact Grey Wind. 

When considering the grey direwolf is in fact a fixture upon the Stark banner, then one could assume a generic grey direwolf to be a Stark, or at least the representation of one by associating a well-known symbol with a member of a group. Furthermore, by lack of distinct features, the implication seems to be that we are looking at a generic Stark. What I mean by that is that the direwolf phenotype (i.e. all observable characteristics) and the Stark phenotype overlap. If we accept that a stereotypical Stark holds the following traits: dark hair (brown, according to the books) and grey eyes and that the direwolf the following: grey fur and golden eyes, it seems to be the case of representation through association at play.

Let’s test this: Rickard Stark had four living children we know of. Out of them all four are dark haired (a presumption where Brandon is concerned as we don’t really have very much by way of fact so we know little about him other than that he was tall – but if he had been light haired it would have been noted) and two at the very least have grey eyes (i.e. Lyanna and Ned), Benjen has blue eyes and Brandon’s eye colour is unknown. This means it could either be grey or blue. Based on this one can assume the Stark phenotype consists of dark hair and grey eyes.

That said, Jon’s dream is contained within a specific space, the crypts of Winterfell. Naturally such a space would be filled to the brim with Starks. The appearance of a grey direwolf in the crypts of Winterfell seems only appropriate. If we accept that the direwolf stands in for the Stark individual that gives rise to the possibility that the generic direwolf(-Stark) could be a specific Stark.

When looking at the wolf’s description we notice one glaring detail, the fur is spotted with blood. This seems to infirm we are not speaking of Robb’s wolf, but had it been Grey Wind in Jon’s dream would there not have been blood mainly around the neck? Since the head was cut off to be placed on Robb’s shoulders? This might have been specified and it would have left us in no doubt that it was actually Robb’s direwolf Jon dreamt of – but since it is not the possibility of interpretation remains. One more detail that really struck me was that the wolf’s eyes were **“shining sadly** through the dark”. Obviously given what has recently happened to House Stark there is much reason for sadness, but if it’s aimed specifically at that, then why place it in the crypts among the ancient kings? Perhaps this sense of sadness is a more general one. The sadness may be well explained by these recent deaths. Perhaps even the shades can feel agony at the death of other members of their family. Or maybe it is foreshadowing. After all the ghosts are on another temporal plane than mortals. It may be that they already know everything that was, is or will be.   

Though I think it might be safe to assume that with Jon not knowing how his mother (supposedly Lyanna) looked like, it could come as natural to associate her with a wolf. Even if rationally he has no knowledge of her identity, it might be that subconsciously there is an inkling already planted. Given that pre-birth memory is a documented phenomenon and after birth the child recognises its mother, then one can speculate these memories, while not consciously surfacing are buried somewhere in the mind of the individual. Jon is incapable of reaching any memory of his mother, but that does not stop the knowledge from existing. Let’s take a look at the most recent image of Lyanna the reader is given, by which I mean the last sighting of her. This happens to be in Theon’s dream where Lyanna’s dress is covered in gore. This could translate to the bloodstains on the direwolf’s fur. Furthermore, Lyanna has been directly connected to the “wolf blood”, understood as a set of traits, it must be said, but given the association exists, her assuming the shape of a wolf is fitting.

Another thing I noticed is that only the statues of the dead Stark males are mentioned. Lyanna’s statue does not appear. I am certain that women did not usually have statues made for them, unlike their male counterparts (given that the contribution of the head of a clan is generally, pragmatically speaking, more visible), so her statue would have stood out from the rest; one would assume that its vanishing would raise some questions. As for why there is a statue of Lyanna in the first place, it could be that Ned loved her so much he wanted to honour her after her death, but it could also be that he thought that at one time when he would tell Jon about his mother and the boy might want to know what she looked like.  To my knowledge, there is no portrait of Lyanna painted (unlike Margaery’s miniature – despite Renly’s claim that she resembles Lyanna, Ned seems to disagree). Still, in Jon’s dream her statue is not mentioned.

Moreover, it is the patriarchs of House Stark who declare Jon to be _“no Stark_ ”, further asserting that _“[…] There is no place for you here”._ In Westeros children are usually part of their father’s house (excepting Dorne where they can be part of their mother’s house, but only if she is unwedded and the child has been legitimised). Thus Jon would not be a Stark by applying the principle of agnatic kinship as much as he would be a Targaryen (assuming that Rhaegar was his father; while that does not necessarily translate to Jon bearing the name – unless he was born within a marriage, from a purely kinship oriented perspective he would be a Targaryen). And when Ned says _“[…] He is my blood […]”_ , the claim seems to be that he is a Stark; therefore how can one have Stark blood, but not be considered a Stark by the ancestors? The reasonable assumption would be that the blood comes from the mother’s side and as such cannot be seen as a bond to the house, but only a link.

Well, that is about everything I have to on this particular topic. I tried to analyse this dream from another a slightly different perspective.  I am not sure if Martin confirmed whether the wolf in Jon’s dream was Grey Wind or not, but as I haven’t read that he did, so this is my take on it – written just for fun.

 

 

 

 

 

 


	4. Harmful Opinion no. 4 - Elia

 

 

 

 

 

 

The issue with the _mainstream_ portrayal of any female character is that nowadays she can only be two things: an angel or the devil incarnate. That is not to say that a female cannot genuinely be good or evil – far from it. The argument is that, and yes this does depend a lot on the manner of your story, characters tend to grow more complex and life-like (despite that we may not agree with their decisions) and to reduce them to such a threadbare dichotomy as simply-good/simply-evil does not serve the writer very well if there is a nuanced message to get across. That said, Elia Martell does not escape this particular snare like most other _ASOIAF_ female characters. So let us look at Elia and what we know of her leaving aside her death. Why? Unfortunate and brutal as it was, it was not of Elia’s doing and therefore does not tell us much about her character or actions.

I would like to begin with the description given to her by Ser Barristan Selmy: “( _Daenerys:)_ _... that was the tourney when he crowned Lyanna Stark as queen of love and beauty! Princess Elia was there, his wife, and yet[my brother](http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Rhaegar_Targaryen) gave the crown to the Stark girl, and later stole her away from her betrothed. How could he do that? Did the Dornish woman treat him so ill?_

 _(Barristan:)_ _It is not for such as me to say what might have been in your brother’s heart, Your Grace. The Princess Elia was a good and gracious lady, though her health was ever delicate._ ” ( _ASOS, Ch._ 42)

It is provided to Dany in one of their conversations. Now, I will not contest that within social situations, Elia could prove herself a pleasant companion to her better. By this I mean that she exhibited amount of respect and propriety when in the presence of nobles of higher rank and large crowds. The image of any nobleman is influenced by his appearance and the way he is perceived. An intelligent person will use it to their advantage. And I by no means consider Elia foolish. In fact, I think she was very smart and within the context of her existence as wife of the Crown Prince that is a definite plus. Naturally, she would be less liable of making Cersei-like mistakes; that is, without any sort of tact dismissing the lower orders to their faces. This would of course account for the gentle wit and cleverness. The kindness aspect would be best covered by her relationship with Rhaenys and Aegon to my mind. Elia loved her children, there is no denying that. I believe she was a devoted mother, which is admirable and admired at the same time. Selmy is trying to blame no one here. And that is a good thing. In the absence of hard, fact-based evidence, it's a very good thing. It's a simple mechanism, in the absence of knowledge, humans pick up the closest approximate. All this put together constructs Selmy’s image of Elia.

And here is where the problems start for me. Let’s take a look at the context in which Barristan addresses the problem of Elia. He is speaking to Dany, a woman he means to serve, therefore he needs tact so as to gain her approval and moreover the fulfillment of an emotional bond. I am not saying he is going this purposefully, that it is a ploy, but what I am saying is that the very nature of his situation at the time of this(/ese) assertion(s) would tip the balance towards a favourable outlook. He does the very same in presenting Rhaegar, if you recall.

Secondly, Barristan is a member of the Kingsguard. What we do know is that Rhaegar and Elia resided on Dragonstone with the natural visits to King’s Landing to present their children at court. As a member of the Kingsguard, Selmy is tied to Aerys first and foremost. It stands to reason that he would spend time where the King is. And the King resides in King’s Landing. I have yet to hear any mention of Dragonstone. Therefore, one must wonder as to the validity of Selmy’s claims. Elia would be observable to him in social situations in the company of those who are higher on the social ladder and her own close family. Put these two together and you may understand why “words” little warm me.

Then one must look at her travels within the kingdoms. Oberyn is notable for having influence over Elia during these happenings. It will be later revealed that the two of them spend their travels mocking Elia’s suitors. _“Elia found it all exciting. She was of that age, and her delicate health had never permitted her much travel. I preferred to amuse myself by mocking my sister’s suitors. There was Little Lord Lazyeye, Squire Squishlips, one I named the Whale That Walks, that sort of thing. The only one who was even halfway presentable was young Baelor Hightower. A pretty lad, and my sister was half in love with him until he had the misfortune to fart once in our presence. I promptly named him Baelor Breakwind, and after that Elia couldn’t look at him without laughing.”_ ( _ASOS_ , Ch. 70). And now you might say that it was only Oberyn who did the mocking. Yes, he was the one with the “cutting wit”, but she didn't seem to attempt to temper him. Whether that has to do with an insensitivity when it comes to those of lower rank (her suitors being mere lords or sers) or with ill-intent I have no way of being 100% certain, but I would hesitate to argue it does have to do with the latter.

The fact remains however that the two of them mocked people for things they could not help: a lazy eye, a deformity of some sort, a limp perhaps. These are all things that could have been the result of nature’s cruelty or that of battle. If it is the first I can only say _bravo, that’s wonderful_. This is the sort of behavior that tends to cast a shadow of doubt over the description Barristan gives. If it is the latter, a war wound or some accident even, I find it remarkably uncharitable of Elia to be laughing at the injured. If these are the acts and actions of a kind, good-natured person is debatable. I simply choose to think that a decent human being would be capable of empathizing, whether they be a teenager or an adult. It does not take the moral constitution of a wise man or a saint to know that empathy is a key factor to giving respect.

Respect shapes kindness further on. How kind is one really to people one does not respect? There has to be a moral component there. And it begins from respect born through empathy. Or to have Elia gaining amusement through what construes the suffering of others show, to me at least, a lack of respect and empathy. Therefore for all the kindness she shows her children, for all that motherly love, we have the reverse. Take it this way. A says that that _B loves animals_. But when C is walking with B on the street and they see a three-legged dog, B laughs at the creature. What does that say about B? What is the implication for A?

Jokes are funny. Purposefully humiliating others is not a joke, however, it’s an act of cruelty and I refuse to treat it as anything else regardless of age. It makes no matter to me that Elia was fifteen or sixteen. Kindness, while influenced by age and understanding, cannot be attributed solely to it. And even if it were so, one would think that by her age she would have garnered enough empathy to see for herself the effects her actions encourage – especially given that she herself was not the halest of all.

And then there is the Baelor episode. I will quote Oberyn again: “ _The only one who was even halfway presentable was young Baelor Hightower. A pretty lad, and my sister was half in love with him until he had the misfortune to fart once in our presence. I promptly named him Baelor Breakwind, and _after that Elia couldn’t look at him without laughing.__ ” ( _ASOS_ , Ch. 70).

I would say that the first three times of laughing are acceptable. A situation can be so amusing as to warrant it. But to be laughing at a person for a prolonged amount of time, despite knowing the faux pas to be a mistake, is something which I find to be a punishment of sorts. And Oberyn specifically says she continued to do so. In only considering Elia, one dismisses Baelor. This is a case of cruelty, unwarranted and undeserved, on the simple basis of a mistake and directed towards Baelor who is arguably a good man, whom she even takes a liking to apparently. That she is able to so easily dismiss him, that she would allow one single jest to ruin a man in her eyes for what is effectively forever, I find concerning. It begs the question of the validity of her judgment when concerning those who are not her close family.

Again, you might blame her age and say it is acceptable. There is a difference between a joke (which would have been a temporary release of amusement) and devaluing a person, man or woman, on what are puerile grounds, let's be clear. A joke implies that the subject can laugh along. But this is not Elia laughing _with_ Baelor, it's Elia laughing _at_ Baelor. So no, I don't find Elia to be kind and good and gentle in this instance. At best I find her irresponsible and at worst contemptible in that she would allow for such flightiness. I would argue that what she felt was probably attracted and nothing more. When you love someone, the thought process is different. I don't actually expect that she might have made Oberyn stop. But if she had tried, wouldn’t have Oberyn made mention of such a reaction? It would have certainly worked to put his sister in a batter light.

Elis is a princess. With this rank come a set of privileges. She is listened to and obeyed, one must take care not to offend her or otherwise cause friction where she is involved. One might argue that such a position does not allow for much criticism, thus some form of entitlement could be born out of this, even a belief that she is deserving of admiration from all others whatever her actions. Or that is simply not how the world works. Good manners require that we act in a polite fashion to those around us, regardless of our own personal belief as to how and who they are.

By her own actions, Elia shows she has little respect for others. Others that are in lesser positions might I add and would, with or without intention, be callous to them. Just because someone’s intention is not to harm, it does not mean that harm is avoided. Now I know that offence is taken and not given. We choose to be offended over something and we choose to take action against certain behaviours. And this is my choice. I choose to speak loud and clear against any demand for blind respect and admiration from others when she gives none to those around her unless they are her family or people of superior rank.

I do not care about her background, her age, her inclinations. Facts speak for themselves. To put this into perspective. When Lyanna saw Reed being beaten up, her reaction was not to point and laugh. It was to pick up a weapon and charge at his assailants.

I will proceed in the next part with the Casterly Rock-incident.

During his own story, Oberyn says the following: _“... and you (Tyrion) yourself were the greatest disappointment of all.” (…) “You were small, but far-famed._ _We_ _were in Oldtown at your birth, and all the city talked of was_ _the monster_ _that had been born to the King’s Hand, and what such an omen might foretell for the realm._ ” ( _ASOS,_ Ch. 38).

The implication behind this is clear. But for the sake of argument, let’s look at it. You have two young people who have heard a certain amount of stories regarding the misfortunes of the Lannisters. They are curious. Certainly, an acceptable reaction. But when they arrive at the Rock they are _disappointed_. It is true that Elia cooed at Tyrion afterwards, however one must point out that the following “ _Perhaps your head was larger than most... but there was no tail, no beard, neither teeth nor claws (…). After all the wonderful whispers, Lord Tywin’s Doom turned out to be just a (…) red infant with stunted legs.”_ ( _ASOS,_ Ch. 38) is what he looked like. One may note that Elia did nothing other than coo at what looked to be an arguably normal baby with perhaps a slightly bigger cranium. I’m sorry, that is just maternal instinct at play, it’s a natural reaction. You will see it in animals as well. Therefore, to claim it a sign of kindness is dishonest on those grounds at least. Even more so given that she did not nurture him in any way. Elia did not hold him, she did not attempt to stop Cersei from harming him, she was just watching a curiosity. If that is kindness, then I do not want to know what its opposite is.

One will perhaps point out that Cersei treats Tyrion much more poorly. It is true. I do not contest it. But Cersei is a child going through _trauma_. She has just lost her mother and Joanna died giving birth. Her blaming the death of her mother on Tyrion is perfectly explainable when one looks at Tywin’s reaction. Children copy adults they admire. So while Cersei may find some legitimacy to her distaste and wish to make a spectacle of her little brother, to have two perfect strangers do the same is again unwarranted and a show of cruelty.

In the end to me it does not matter what “descriptions” a character gets. Their behaviour defines them within the context of their circumstances.

Moving to the Elia and Rhaegar’s marriage. There seems to be this assumption that she listened to him and did all things good and right, but it is often brushed aside that to listen is not necessarily to understand. She was his wife, all options were closed to her in this instance but a monster argument or obedience. And since according to most medieval laws in case of a separation children remain with the father, (I believe it plausible to assume Westeros operated on like terms with making the father responsible if he is known) she should accept her "fate", so to speak, even more in the context that they had children and as a loving mother she would have wanted to stay with them.

So that begs the following question: how did she act within her marriage? The answer can be but complex. Jon Connington, for example, would devalue Elia on the basis of the fact that she could not have more children after Aegon, Cersei demeans her for her looks and Barristan argues along with Oberyn that she was kind. But no one actually tells us how she acted within her marriage, likely because, as a matter of privacy and physical distance, it is not entirely possible to report such matters. The only one who does speak of it is Viserys – and he seems to think that Rhaegar was unhappy in his marriage ( _ASOS,_ Ch. 42).

Let’s look at this a bit, shall we? What reason would Viserys, a child at the time, have to notice unhappiness within a married couple? Perhaps he would have had the necessary experience (his own parents’ crumbling relationship arguably one to be called unhappy) and the skills necessary to distinguish this displeasure, however why the lack of remorse if Elia was so kind and gentle? Now presumably when Elia came to King’s Landing with her two children, Viserys being there as well would have had the chance to spend time with her – or at the very least some time. Of course one might argue Viserys is so lost he cannot possibly remember kindness, but that he essentially lost himself when he sold his mother’s crown would suggest otherwise. Rhaella is arguably the one who showed most kindness to Viserys. If one admits he loved her to the point where her death is not seen with nonchalance, and if then we should equate Rhaella and Elia in the realm of behaviour, why should be expect a difference of reaction. And the difference is there. The blame is simply shifted from Elia to Daenerys without any seeming sympathy for the former’s plight. Therefore, what could explain Viserys’ dispassionate response? Perhaps he did not take to Elia. And if he did not one has to wonder why. We actually do not know that he was locked away, so we may assume they did see one another and interacted. Presuming they did not spend more than a little while together (baring the possibility of Rhaenys and Viserys enjoying play-dates), the question is what did he see in such a short time span to put him off? Maybe he saw whatever the truth is; the one we do not know yet.

So maybe not all was well there.

Is that to say I blame Elia specifically for her situation? No, most certainly not. I think she is lacking in the morality department. I could certainly wish for better of her, however, norms of the society she lived in demanded that she wed and have children. That is not a fault. Those are arbitrary circumstances and there is no blame to be placed on anyone in such circumstances. I would have to know nothing about the middle ages and how marriage worked for the higher class. Medieval marriage, typically, shows the middle finger to age, love, choice etc. As such these aspects are not to be judged with iron in hand. Her behaviour within them, however, I reserve the right to pick apart as I deem fit. You cannot be a barrier in the way of anyone’s love unless one is a subject of said affection. Elia being Rhaegar’s wife, respected for that and perhaps even afforded a certain amount of non-erotic affection, does construe a barrier of any sort, except in the religious department. The Faith demands monogamy. Or in a medieval-based society where marriage is a contract, spouses are for advancement, not love. Love is found with paramours. Elia was chosen as Rhaegar’s bride based on pedigree no doubt. Her position and station were to be a bridge to further winnings for the Crown and as such she was deemed suitable.

And this is my particular understanding of the complex topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> I understand that others may disagree and you are welcome to if you so will. More power to you. :D
> 
> I think I'll take a look at Robert next.


	5. Battering and Rams - short notice

“The first reaction upon hearing about the topic of battered men, for many people, is that of incredulity. Battered husbands are a topic for jokes (such as the cartoon image of a woman chasing her husband with a rolling-pin). One researcher noted that wives were the perpetrators in 73% of the depictions of domestic violence in newspaper comics (Saenger 1963).  
[…]  
Betty King had beaten, slashed, stabbed, thrown dry acid on, and shot her husband. Eddie King had not sought prosecution when she slashed his face with a carpet knife, nor when she left him in a parking lot with a blade in his back. Neither of these incidents even made the police records as statistics. She was only arrested twice -- when she stabbed him so severely in the back and so publicly (in a bar) that the incidents had to be reported.  
All these stabbings, shootings, and acid-throwings happened during a four-year marriage. During a subsequent shouting match on the porch of a friend's house, Betty King once again reached into her purse. This time Eddie King shot her. When an investigation led to a verdict of self-defense, there was an outcry of opposition from feminists and the media.  
[…]  
There is such a strong stigma against being a battered man, carried over from medieval times when the battered man was considered the guilty party, that special attention should be paid to reaching out to these victims.“ (http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/husband.htm)

“In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people's derision and contempt. Such "treatments" for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).“ (http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/george94.htm)  


##### Will discuss:  
\- legality of wife-chastising; illegality of wife-battering (yes, there is a difference)  
\- why such ideas were considered acceptable  
\- rape vs. marital-rape – religion, society and your little heart  
\- what’s worse than ignoring someone completely? ridiculing then, maybe  
\- attempts at hiding facts (classy)  
\- rule of thumb lie  
\- who abuses more? men or women? (why? how? when? where?)  
\- preferences in methods of abuse  
\- social stigma on victims and perpetrators  
\- wait? who is silencing whom here  


Everything, of course with examples picked out of our favourite series ever ASOIAF.

####  Why am I giving a warning? Well frankly, because I can already hear all the arguments that start with "But men...", "But social constructs...", "But rape..."

If you are one of those persons who feels the need to make such arguments, please, there are beautiful forums dedicated to it. You will have lots of fun there and an echo-chamber to boot.

Example of bibliographical titles:

Aardoom, A. (1993, April 17). Ending the silence of abused men. Calgary Mirror 10.

Adler, E. S. (1981). The underside of married life: Power, influence and violence. In L. H. Bowker (Ed.), Women and crime in America (pp. 86-101). New York: Macmillan.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1978). Wives: The "appropriate" victims of marital violence. Victimology, 2, 426-442.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: The Free Press.

Gelles, R. J. (1974). The violent home. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence: The definitive study of the causes and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York: Simon & Schuster.

McCleod, M. (1984). Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on the analysis of official data and national victimisation data. Justice Quarterly, 1(2), 171-193.

Pagelow, M. D. (1985). The "battered husband syndrome": Social problem or much ado about little? In N. Johnson (Ed.), Marital violence: Sociological Review Monograph 31 (pp. 172-195). London: Routledge, Kegan & Paul.

Pizzey, E. (1974). Scream quietly or the neighbors will hear. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Pizzey, E., & Shapiro J. (1982). Prone to violence. Feltham, UK; Hamlyn Paperbacks.

Saenger, C. (1963). Male and female relationships in the American comic strips. In D. M. White & R. H. Abel (Eds.), The funnies: An American idiom (pp. 219-231). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). Wifebeating, husband beating—a comparison of the use of physical violence between spouses to resolve marital fights. In M. Roy (Ed.), Battered women (pp. 63-72). New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhold.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1977-78). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology: An International Journal, 2, 499-509.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Women and violence: Victims and perpetrators. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34, 334-350.

Straus, M. A. (1978). Family measurement techniques. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wolff, I. (1992, November 28). Domestic violence: The other side. The Spectator, 22-26.


	6. The Silence

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The first reaction upon hearing about the topic of battered men, for many people, is that of incredulity. Battered husbands are a topic for jokes (such as the cartoon image of a woman chasing her husband with a rolling-pin). One researcher noted that wives were the perpetrators in 73% of the depictions of domestic violence in newspaper comics (Saenger 1963)” (<http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/husband.htm> Source ).

Domestic violence is something all of us are aware exists. If for no other reason, than just because the media outlets let us know every other day or so that somewhere in the world yet another case has been reported in which barbaric behaviour reigned supreme before anyone could think to intervene. However, for the most part, victims of such stories are women and perpetrators are men. 

In the face of such reports, one has to ask, are men violent creatures unable to control themselves? Conversely, are women perfect victims in such scenarios?

For this purpose, historical evidence will be looked upon to elucidate the mystery along with more recent evidence regarding domestic abuse. But let us start at the very beginning with the definition of domestic violence. 

**What is domestic violence?**

Domestic violence (hereafter shortened to DV), domestic abuse, or assault family violence defines a set of behavioural characteristics which result in injuries of a family member at the hands of another family member. “Even though very similar to a regular criminal battery allegation, domestic battery charges can result in more severe consequences. Someone facing domestic battery charges should understand the charge, defenses, and consequences before accepting a plea bargain,” notes the site FreeAdvice on the legal matter of domestic abuse ([FreeAdvice on DV](http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/domestic-battery-charges.htm)) and it goes on to clarify the following, “Like the name suggests, domestic battery charges first start with an assault or battery. A heated argument is not enough. Domestic battery charges must include proof of some type of assault, or physical contact, that resulted in the victim experiencing pain. If the victim wasn’t physically touched or did not feel any pain as the result of a touch, then the charges never expand to the second element.”

With this in mind one should turn to a larger definition of abuse, for as we well know, abuse can also include psychological elements. For example, the individual less likely to win in a physical fight may turn to other abusive behaviours such as draining the partner of money or orchestrating frequent hysterical episodes of jealousy (Correy, Fiebert & Pizzey, 2002).

I would personally include to this degrading behaviour and verbal assaults. Now, let us be clear, if we are speaking of one instance in which the husband/wife insults the other with a “You’re stupid/dumb/a pig/a cow…” etc, we are not talking about verbal assaults that should be construed as abuse. It can be the case of a quick angry reaction to a situation. If, however, this is a common occurrence in the relationship, we are in the presence of psychological abuse as under constant attacks of such nature, self-esteem tends to flounder, leading to results ranging from depressing to suicide (incidentally, men are 3.5 times more likely to commit suicide than women says [AFSP](http://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/) for the USA, while women are more likely to attempt suicide; but that is another discussion).

So now that we have our terms straight and know what to expect when speaking of DV, let us identify in Martin’s _ASOIAF_ cases of domestic violence. We’ll proceed to do so off the top of our heads, naming the most prominent ones (this will include what could be IPV – intimate partner violence, as in some cases one cannot speak of “domestic” as within a marriage):

_Ramsay Snow and his wives (we are not counting his abuse towards other people);_

_Joffrey’s abusive behaviour towards Sansa;_

_Viserys Targaryen’s assaults on his sister:_

_Cersei Lannister and Robert Baratheon along with Jaime Lannister;_

_Aerys Targaryen’s abuse of his sister-wife, Rhaella._

Right off the bat we notice, with no small amount of consternation, that our suspicions regarding the aggressive-male are confirmed. Out of five cases, only in one case do we have a female perpetrator, and even there the situation is rather muddied.    

A brief look over these five cases reveals certain parallels between them: the one meriting most attention, however, is **rape** (or attempted rape, for one).

Now rape is a serious crime. It has always been a serious crime when perpetrated against women. Yes, even in the most egregious, sexist, misogynistic societies run by men, rape against a woman is punishable and has been so for most if the human existence. Incidentally, the greater the punishment, the harder it is to prove a rape has taken place. But leaving that aside, one should know what rape is for the purpose of our discussion.

The Oxford English dictionary, online edition, gives this definition to rape:

“1The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have [sexual intercourse](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sexual-intercourse#sexual-intercourse__2) with the offender against their will:

Synonyms

1.1 _archaic_ The [abduction](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abduction#abduction__2) of a woman, especially for the purpose of having [sexual intercourse](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sexual-intercourse#sexual-intercourse__2) with her: _the Rape of the[Sabine](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Sabine#Sabine__5) Women_

Synonyms

2The [wanton](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wanton#wanton__2) [destruction](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/destruction#destruction__2) or [spoiling](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/spoil#spoil__2) of a place: _the rape of the countryside ”_([OED](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rape))

When looking at such a definition, it is glaringly obvious that a judgement has already been passed as pertains to the most likely person to be a perpetrator. But why? A look at the legal definition of rape should, of course, afford one a better understanding of the reason:

“rape

in traditionalEnglish criminallaw,unlawful sexual intercoursewith a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it and where, at the time,the man knows that the woman does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she consents to it.The word ‘unlawful’, which had been thought by many to mean‘without marriage’, was held not to prevent a husband being held to be able to commit rape against his wife, and indeed the House of Lords held in 1991 that the rule laid down forover 150 years that a man could not be guilty of raping his wife no longer applied.

Rape is now very much more widely defined by statute. A person (A) commits an offence if he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, B does not consent to the penetration, and A does not reasonably believe that B consents. Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents. Where B is under 13 there is a separate analogous offence but consent is no defence at all. (Sexual Offences Act 2003.) Where the penis is not used the offence may be assault by penetration” ([TFD](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape)).

There you have it, men can only be raped by other men, as rape must include penetration.

Do you see a problem with this definition?

So do I. It does not seem to account for forced envelopment. Now to those unfamiliar with the term, forced envelopment means that a woman through coercion forces a man to have sexual intercourse with her. Now, these means do not need to be violent, it could be a threat, it could be ridiculing, it could be holding him at knifepoint. However, as the law does not count this as rape, men cannot be raped by women (despite a plethora of testimonies to the contrary – especially in juvenile holding centres in which women works as guards; but the  men were probably “asking for it” and “enjoyed it” [sic]). Therefore, right from the start women can only victims and men only perpetrators in the eyes of the law, or at best(?) victims of another man, as rape goes .

Inevitably, we now turn to marital rape. The definition is largely the same with the addition of a secondary circumstance: the perpetrator and the victim (read as the man and the woman, namely) must be married (or in some legislatures cohabitating). Still, it remains that within the marriage, to prove a wife raped her husband is pretty much impossible; so when something is not considered a crime, evidence of such rarely surface. It should come as no surprise that as of yet, evidence of marital rape against men is virtually impossible to pin down.      

With our new awareness of what is and is not considered domestic violence, let us proceed to look at the three of the cases I have mentioned.    

Ramsay Snow: on Donella Hornwood and Jeyne Poole(/fArya)

Ramsay Snow has a spotted past to say the least. We know of him that he enjoys hunting down and raping women and then flaying their corpses (or flaying them alive if they didn’t entertain him). What does that say about the man? To most readers, that he is a sadistic person who is very likely a candidate for insanity.

So, when he rapes (we presume it is beforehand, but do not preclude it could be afterwards) and subsequently married Donella Hornwood, it is a clear case of marital rape. Yes, this is what marital rape is, or rather should be if one thinks on what marriage is itself. To add further insult to injury, the man locks his wife away and lets her starve to death.

What is the general reaction to what Ramsay did? For the most part, horror. How do we know that? Well, because punishment is dealt for his crimes. Through a much mourned misfortune, Ramsay manages to evade, yet no one can deny that it was sought through those wielding judicial power at the time to punish the man’s crimes.

What does that say about Westeros? That it does not accept rape and does not justify it even within the bonds of (forced!) marriage. Ergo, marriage does not cover rape.

The situation with Jeyne Poole, however, shows it is infinitely more complicated a matter to intervene into than one would wish. However, given that attempts have been made and the general views is negative as regarding Ramsay’s conduct, I think it is safe to assume, rape, even marital in nature, is taken seriously.

Joffery Barartheon: on Sansa Stark

A similar case is seen with the once-king Joffrey. Like Ramsay, he enjoys mutilating others and indeed seems to draw pleasure from their pain. One of his favourite victims is undoubtedly Sansa Stark, for whom he prepares careful ministrations of physical and psychological abuse: from humiliation to rough handling and promise of rape. That he does so without actually touching her himself seems to lower him even more in the eyes of others. As one has yet to hear congratulatory words for this character, we will assume he has earned the rightful disdain of those who have witnessed his proclivities.

Why does no one intervene? Mostly because we are talking about a king, a king who is above the law.   

Donella, Jeyne and Sansa (along with Rhaella and Daenerys) seem to have the following in common: their involvement with the perpetrator is “accidental”. By accidental we mean that they ended up in a very bad situation unknowingly, being in the process battered, and as Pizzey puts it “a battered _person_ is the innocent victim of another person’s violence” (Corry, Fiebert, and Pizzey 2002, 5). They are solely looking for a way to leave the “relationship”.

Cersei Lannister: on Robert Baratheon and Jaime Lannister

We all know how the relationship of Cersei and Robert began: due to his inebriated state, Robert confused his wife for a completely different woman and that naturally angered her. This led to a rapid deterioration of the relationship between the two, resulting in at least two self-caused miscarriages on Cersei’s part and a less than understanding attitude from Robert as pertaining to her wiles. As it happens, excessive drinking led to Robert bringing harm to his wife during sexual intercourse, which led to a confrontation. Robert claimed it he could not remember hurting her and the drink was at fault for which Cersei, not believing him, smashed a drinking horn to his face ( _AFFC, Chapter 32_ ).

I am not certain how many of you have seen what drinking horns looks like. If you have, you will probably be able to recall the sharp lower half, almost spike-like in its ending. Needless to say, this assault led to permanent damage, namely a chipped tooth for Robert. Now I hear you, “It’s just a chipped tooth, it’s not like he’ll die.” Except, he could well have died. It really depends on how deep the crack goes and if any of the horn’s implements cut the gums. In such cases, a wound could develop and untreated, it could cause death.

How did Robert respond to this assault? Well, he didn’t. Cersei received no physical backlash for her actions. You may be tempted to account for this with his guilt. Which is fair enough, but it still does not justify Cersei’s violent outburst.

Imagine Robert had smashed a drinking horn to Cersei’s face. What would the response to that be? I imagine pitchforks.

Let us look at Robert’s assaults on Cersei. He slapped her, twice as recounted by Cersei. The first time was when she threatened Mya Stone, Robert’s daughter, and the second was the argument Ned was privy to.

I have often heard it said, “There is no conceivable reason for which to hit a woman.” 

In the words of Bill Burr, a man and a woman get married, he works and works to build her a house, buy a car, pay for whatever she wants. One day, he comes back from work only to find her in bed with the neighbour. She files for divorce, takes half his things and if she’s particularly cruel, she claims he was a batterer and would often mistreat her. So, I ask you, is there really no “conceivable reason” for which a man might want to hit a woman? None; are you certain? This is **not to say a man should hit a woman. No one should hit anyone.** However, to claim that there is no conceivable reason reveals such a level of entitlement that is barely bearable – it is mind boggling and highly dismissive of abuse perpetrated by women themselves. Cersei is a victim of her own violence to a point.

But no one discussed Cersei smashing a drinking horn into Robert’s face, just like no one discussed the more general frame of male abuse that has been constantly swept under the rug and ridiculed at every possible turn, while female abuse not only earned the perpetrator the disdain of the larger society, but very often corporeal punishments as well, along with monetary penalties. 

A wife beater could, and still can in some countries, face the punishment of whipping. And I don’t mean ten whips across the back for unjustified beatings. I mean from anywhere north of thirty lashes. And of course in our European societies they face public opprobrium and are for the most part punished without mercy.  Because, as far as 202 BCE, as traceable sources go, wife battering was considered **criminal behaviour!**   

**What about men? ([Sourec](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00976539))**

Is the situation similar for men? Was husband-battering considered criminal behaviour? Well, the answer is no. There are several reasons for it, the surface ones being that man, physically stronger are supposed to be able to deflect such attacks or at the very least ignore them, the general image of the innocent woman perpetuated throughout the ages and a deeply rooted and too easily accepted belief that woman, as a group, have been and are oppressed by men, as a group.

Since ancient times, men have been look to as the leaders, in the house and outside. As such, not only was the man responsible for his own deed, but also **for the actions of those under his protection.** Yes, that gave him certain privileges, like chastising the members of his family for their bad deed. Including the women. Why? Because **he** was the one who had to pay for the damage **she** did, not the other way around.

Does this mean wife-beating was acceptable? Yes and no. For example, Greeks did not take well to wife-beating, and batterers have been known to be excommunicated from their communities, often after having endured harsh punishment for their actions. The Romans, however, took a different view. By equating the woman with the child regarding her legal **responsibilities,** the Roman man could when necessary discipline his wife. However, wanton use of force was still punished. Ancient law permitted that the family of a wife battered to death by her husband could come and either kill the man or demand a sum of money from him, as the prevailing law was that of an eye for an eye.

What about something closer to _ASOIAF._ The middle ages. The man is still seen as the moral authority within the family, because quite frankly, when you are yourself responsible for the actions of another, you should be given at least that much. As such the Church permitted the following ”…When you see our wife commit an offense…scold her sharply, bully and terrify her….if this doesn’t work…take up a stick and beat her soundly, for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than to damage the soul and spare the body.” ( _Rules of Marriage_ )

Imagine the following: The wife and husband have X coins. The wife goes out and, for example, starts buying whatever takes her fancy from the market. Who is the one having to pay? Well, the husband. Legally speaking, he is financially responsible for his wife, as such he **must** provide for her, under pain of punishment if he fails to do so. But let us say the wife goes overboard and buys more than what they have to pay with. What happens then? Easy, the man is punished for incurring debt and is expected to produce the money to cover it.

Does the wife have any similar responsibilities to her husband? **No.** But she can expect his helping hand in any situation, as he must give it to her. Is it then, in such a scenario possible that a man should have to castigate his wife?  

As for beatings, they are allowed only to the point they are corrections. Is that to say beating one’s wife is the right thing to do? **Absolutely not.** It is however not difficult to see why it was thought to be needed.

What about the **rule of thumb** then? It has been claimed that the expression “rule of thumb” refers to the right of a husband to beat his wife with a stick, so long as it is no thicker than a thumb. Only apparently, there is nothing to substantiate such a claim. Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock claims the following, "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers, instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs." Hiscock adds that the phrase came into metaphorical use by the late seventeenth century. Hiscock could not track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, but he believes it is an example of 'modern folklore' and compares it to other 'back-formed explanations.' such as the claim asparagus comes from 'sparrow-grass' or that 'ring around the rosy' is about the plague” ([Rule of Thumb Hoax](http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html)”).

A cursory glance over the Oxford English dictionary seems to confirm such a belief as it “notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science” ([Rule of Thumb Hoax](http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html)”).

So, the next time someone proceed s to speak without having their facts together, remind them to check the _OED_ to at least give some credence to their arguments.   

Having established the following, let us look at the treatment of the male victim of domestic abuse.

There is very little written on male domestic abuse prior to recent years (20th and 21st Century, that is). What we do know comes from post-Renaissance England and France. Male-victims are treated as follows: “In France, for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people's derision and contempt” ([Dobash & Dobash, 1979](http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/george94.htm#DOBASH79) \- [source](http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/george94.htm)). Occasionally, the community also gathered in the middle of the night around the male victim’s house, banging pans and pots together to let everyone know there was a victim of abuse there, presumably so they could all laugh at the man’s pain together and maybe watch him being chased around with a rolling pin by an angry wife.

Where does that leave us? With a deep rooted stigma regarding male victims of domestic abuse. The situation is further worsened by individuals who refuse to believe that men can be victims too, despite a good many studies showing gender parity (equality by numbers, that is) regarding violent behaviour in heterosexual couples. For your viewing pleasure, if you’ve nothing better to do than search through them, here is a list of studies and works that have been quietly swept under the rug of the mainstream narrative in hopes that people are stupid and uncaring enough to never search for them:

Aardoom, A. (1993, April 17). Ending the silence of abused men. _Calgary Mirror_ 10.

Bates, R. E. (1981). A plea for the battered husband. _Family Law, 11,_ 92-94.

Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: <http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf>

Catalano, S. (2005). Intimate partner violence in the United States 1993-2005. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/intimate/table/vomen.cfm National Crime Victimization Survey data.

Douglas, E.M. and Hines, D. (2011) "The helpseeking experiences of men who sustain intimate partner violence: An overlooked population and implications for practice." J. Fam. Vio. 2011 Aug;26(6):473-485 Published online 04 June 2011. National Institute of Mental Health Grant Number 5R21MH074590. Available at: <http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Douglas%20%20Hines%202011%20helpseeking%20experiences%20of%20male%20victims.pdf>

Galdas, P. M., Cheater, F., & Marshall, P. (2005). Men and health helpseeking behaviour: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(6), 616-622

Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63-72. Available at: <http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Hines%20Brown%20and%20Dunning%202007%20DAHM.pdf>

Hoff, B. H. (2001), The Risk of Serious Physical Injury from Assault by a Woman Intimate: A Re-Examination of National Violence Against Women Survey Data on Type of Assault by an Intimate. MenWeb on-line Journal (ISSN: 1095-5240 <http://www.menweb.org/NVAWSrisk.htm>) Retrieved from Web on Jan. 18, 2011.

Saltzman LE, Fanslow JL, McMahon PM, Shelley GA. Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta (GA): National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1999. This is the most current version of this document, as of January 19, 2011.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). Wifebeating, husband beating—a comparison of the use of physical violence between spouses to resolve marital fights. In M. Roy (Ed.), _Battered women_ (pp. 63-72). New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhold.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1977-78). The battered husband syndrome. _Victimology: An International Journal, 2,_ 499-509.

Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Women and violence: Victims and perpetrators. _American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34,_ 334-350.

Statistics Canada (2011 January). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile Catalogue no. 85-224-X, pp. 7-8. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

Statistics Canada (2006, October). Measuring violence against women: Statistical trends 2006 (Catalogue No. 85-570-XIE). Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/85-570-XIE2006001.pdf (654,000 women and 546,000 men - men 45.5%)

Straus, M.A. (2011). Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior 16 (2011) 279-288. Available at: [http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V78%20Clincal%20level%20symmetry-Published-11.pdf](http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/V78%20Clincal%20level%20symmetry-Published-11.pdf)

Straus, M. A. (2005). Women's violence toward men is a serious social problem. In D.R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on famlly violence, 2nd Edltlon (2nd Edition ed., pp. 55-77). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Available at: [http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/VB33R%20Women's%20Violence%20Toward%20Men.pdf](http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/VB33R%20Women%27s%20Violence%20Toward%20Men.pdf)

Straus, M. A. (1995). Trends in cultural norms and rates of partner violence: an update to 1992. In S. Stith & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Understanding partner violence: Prevalence, causes, consequences, and solutions (pp. 30-33). Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations. Available at: [http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V56.pdf](http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/V56.pdf)

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1988). How violent are American families?: Estimates from the National Family Violence Resurvey and other studies. In G. T. Hotaling & D. Finkelhor (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in research (pp. 14-36). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Tjaden, P. G., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full Report of Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Research Report, Nov. 2000. NCJ 183781

Truman, J.S., (2011). National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal Victimization, 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 235508

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (2005, Nov.). Solicitation for Proposals: Justice Responses to Intimate Partner Violence and Stalking. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 16.560 CFDA Title: National Institute of Justice Research, Evaluation, and Development Project. Grants Grants.gov Funding No. 2006-NIJ-1207 SL 000734. The 2007 solicitation, Intimate Partner Violence and Stalking: Research for Policy and Practice, CFDA No. 16.560, the last year of the research for policy and practice funding, states: "Within these priority areas, applicants may submit proposals that examine the criminal justice response to intimate partner violence and/or stalking as it occurs within diverse populations. This might include, but is not limited to, studies that focus on ethnic, racial, and language minority groups including immigrants; Native American women; women who live in rural areas; women with cognitive, developmental, or physical disabilities; women with vision impairments; elderly women; women living in institutional settings; women who are migrant workers; women involved in prostitution; and homeless women." (p. 5)

 _Woods v. Horton_ (2008), 167 Cal.App.4th 658 CA Ct. of Appeal 3rd Dist. 08 C.D.O.S. 13247 "We find the gender-based classifications in the challenged statutes that provide programs for victims of domestic violence violate equal protection. We find male victims of domestic violence are similarly situated to female victims for purposes of the statutory programs and no compelling state interest justifies the gender classification. We reform the affected statutes by invalidating the exemption of males and extending the statutory benefits to men, whom the Legislature improperly excluded." See _Men & Women Against Discrimination v. The Family Protection Services Bd._, Kanawa County (VWA) Circuit Court, Civil Cause No. 08-C-1056. Decision filed Oct. 2, 2009.

Thomas, D. (1993). _Not guilty: The case in defense of men._ New York; William Morrow.

Travin, S., Cullen, K., & Potter, B. (1990). Female sex offenders: Severe victims and victimizers. _Journal of Forensic Science, 35,_ 140-150.

Wolff, I. (1992, November 28). Domestic violence: The other side. _The Spectator,_ 22-26.

Berk, R. A., What the scientific evidence shows: On the average, we can do no better than arrest, _in_ Gelles, R. J. and Loseke, D. R., Current Controversies on Family Violence, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, p. 323-336, 1993.

 

Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., and Western, B., The differential deterrent effects of an arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of three randomized field experiments, American Sociological Review, **87,** p. 698-708, 1992.

Buzawa, E. S., and Buzawa, C. G., The scientific evidence is not conclusive: Arrest is no panacea, _in_ Gelles, R. J., and Loseke, D. R., eds., Current Controversies on Family Violence, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, p. 337-356, 1993b.

 

Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., and Templar, D., Aggression in British

heterosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis, Aggressive Behavior, 22, p. 401-415, 1996.

 

Cook, P. W., Abused Men — The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence, Preager, Westport,

Connecticut, 195 p., 1997.

Dugan, L., Nagin, D., and Rosenfeld, R., Exposure reduction or backlash? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate partner homicide, final report: National Institute of Justice, US Dept. of Justice, NCJ No. 186194, January 3, 2001.

 

Dutton, D.G. and Golant, S.K., The Batterer: A Psychological Profile, Basic Books, 209 p., 1995.

 

Elliot, F. A., Neurological factors, in Van Hasselt, V.B., Morrison, R.L., Bellack, A.S., and Hersen, M., eds., Handbook of Family Violence, Plenum Press, New York, p. 259-382, 1988.

 

Fiebert, M. F., References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An annotated bibliography, Sexuality and Culture, 1, 273-286, 1997, and see

www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.

 

Fiebert, M. S., and Gonzalez, D. M., Women who initiate assaults: The reasons offered for such behavior. Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590, 1997.

 

Gardner, R., The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Creative Therapeutics Publishing, Cresskill, NJ, 1992.

 

Gelles, R. J., Intimate Violence and Families, 3rd Ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, 202 p., 1997.

 

Johnson, D., Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women, Journal of Marriage and the Family, **57,** p. 283-294, 1995.

 

McLeod, M., Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an analysis of official data and national victimization data, Justice Quarterly, **1** , p. 171-193, 1984.

 

Pearson, P., When She Was Bad, How and Why Women Get Away With Murder, Penguin Putnam, New York, 294 p., 1997.

 

Pizzey, E. and Shapiro, J., Prone to violence, Feltham Hamlyn, Middlesex, England, 1982 (see www.bennett.com/ptv).

 

Pizzey, E., The Emotional Terrorist and the Violence-Prone, Commoners' Publishing, Ottawa, 133 p. 1998.

 

Pizzey, E., A comparative study of battered women and violence-prone women, [www.dvmen.org](http://www.dvmen.org), 2000.

 

Rosenbaum, A., Hoge, S. K., Adelman, S. A., Warnken, W. J., Fletcher, K. E., and Kane, R. L., Head injury in partner-abusive men, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, **62,** 6, p. 1187-1193, 1994.

 

Sarantakos, S., Husband abuse as self defense, paper presented at International Congress of Sociology, Montreal, Canada, 1998.

 

Sarantakos, S., Husband abuse: Fact or fiction?, Australian Journal of Social Issues, August, 1999.

 

Sommer, R., Male and female perpetrated partner abuse: Testing a diathese-stress model. (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Canada), University Microfilms International, ISBN 0-315-99064-3, 1994.

 

Straus, M., Gelles, R., and Steinmetz, S., Behind Closed Doors, Violence in the American Family, Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1980.

 

Tong, D., Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide For The Falsely Accused, Huntington House, 278 p., 2001.

 

Turket, I. D., Divorce-related malicious mother syndrome, www.microserve.net/~steflink/malice.htm.

 

Warnken, W. J., Rosenbaum, A., Fletcher, K. E., Hoge, S. K., and Adelman, S. A., Head injured males: A population at risk for relationship aggression, Violence and Victims, **9,** 2, p. 153-166, 1994.

 

This leads me to the natural conclusion: "Violence by wives has not been an object of public concern. There has been no publicity, and no funds have been invested in ameliorating this problem because _it_ has not been defined as a problem" (Straus & Gelles 1986) and more often than not “If a man is attacked by his wife and decides to call the police, he is the one who is likely to be arrested” (Wolff 1992).

As it happens even in Martin’s universe, plain to see, a woman abusing her husband must “have her reasons” and the victim “must have done something to deserve it”. Where is the honest victim of this vile crime, I ask.

_Oh, he doesn’t exist._

 

 

 

  

  

 

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> ##### Apparently, we do live in a society that condones rape and domestic abuse, just not against women, as is so often carelessly bandied about. It turns out that men are the victims of such henious crimes.
> 
> And how do we respond to that?
> 
> We ignore it. Because men don't matter.
> 
> Well fc!n' done, society!


	7. Ned the Devil

Look what I got:

 

 

Men protect honour and respect strength. The reason why they don't speak about their problems is because when they do they are ridiculed for it, mind not primarily by other men – that is, complaint in the sense of sitting down and crying over how hard life is, is something many men are ill-equipped for as from a very young age the boy is told he is expected to be strong and the leading example of other men is also strength. If a boy cries he is told not to be a baby, not because babies are inherently inferior, but because babies are helpless, and for them crying is a normal reaction, but boys are not helpless, they have agency, they have choice, so crying is a sigh of weakness. So the reason why Ned bottles everything up is not so much ill-intention on his part. It just is the way he functions. Ned believed that he was protecting Lyanna's honour if Jon is hers. It was more honourable in his mind for her to be the victim. And of course it would be, because men have always been expected to take responsibility and protect those around them. Or to say that Lyanna was not a victim, that she might have chosen to go along with Rhaegar’s plan for her very own motives would undermine the very notion of male responsibility and female fragility. It would in essence make the bold statement: “I chose and you have no right to undermine my capacity to make the choice, however much you may disagree with it.”

Furthermore for all Ned knows, Jon is a bastard in the literal sense. We are not given to believe Rhaegar and Lyanna married, so by the law he is a bastard. If you believe calling a spade a spade is somehow offensive, my advice is to join the regressive SJW cult currently in power.

On the contrary, throwing Jon out would have besmirched her memory. Killing him would have besmirched her memory. Giving him to Robert to slay, too. I agree that Ned could have perhaps done more to force his wife into accepting Jon, but that would not have changed Catelyn's mentality. If anything, it would have pushed her even further into a circle of hatred. And from her perspective it does make some sense. I do not agree with her, but I can at least recognise why. It would have led to her poisoning Robb against Jon, which for better or worse, she never actually managed in the books. Robb and Jon treated one another like brothers. Arguably, it was only ever Sansa who thought less of Jon for being a "bastard". And Sansa in many ways is her mother’s daughter at the beginning of the series, thus one can conceivably suppose she shares a number of sensibilities with Catelyn which would influence her view of Jon, whereas, the other children are closer to their father.

Now this problem is many-fold and could be discussed from a number of perspectives. I will not go beyond drawing a few general lines for the discussion with pertinence to why the situation evolved as it did: 1) women understand sexuality as tied to emotions and investment; for them their partner’s entanglement with another woman is a loss of resources, therefore encouraging a negative reaction – especially in the medieval timeframe where resources are of capital importance; 2) women rely on a collectivist mindset instead of an individual one – which is why demonizing the “other woman and her group” is so easy for them; 3) women don’t really understand men or male congition, because like it or not there are significant differences in how males and females “think”.  

As for bastards being mistakes, they are a form of failed cognition. If you know anything about the middle ages, then you must know that incidentally bastards are not the duty of their mother. They are, in fact, SOLELY the duty of their father. By law a man was expected to provide for any and all offspring, be they within or out of the bounds of marriage. Furthermore, failure to do so provoked the censure of society, which meant the man would lose his respect, he would be without honour in the eyes of his peers. If he did still refuse to take on his responsibility it was passed on not to the mother, but to the head of her family, that is to her father or brother. That meant that the father/brother was fully expected to provide for the child and to keep his sister. That is to say, it was additional expense, where one puts that the daughter/sister would need a large dowry if any other man was to take her - as her character, mind not her body, was already questionable, and the child would need either a large dowry if she was a girl and hoped to make a respectable marriage or receive an education to be prepared for monastic life, or a knight/craftsman/merchant to serve under which would still mean a large sum of money to be given to the knight/craftsman/merchant to take him on, if the child was male. So of course people generally were not all that glad when their daughter/sister came home with a bastard. It only made things harder for the head of the family from a financial standpoint in a time when resources were more difficult to come by and obtained with some hardship. The women had no responsibility to the child whatsoever. None, let me be clear. So Lyanna's mistake is not so much having a child, and not even her mistake but Rhaegar's, but the fact that her character would have been considered wavering - because if she was willing to sleep with a man out of wedlock and commit, essentially, adultery, who is to say a marriage with her would have been beneficial? That is to say, if you know someone is a thief and they have robbed you before, how willing exactly would you be to receive them in a second time?

But Ned did not want that for his sister. He did not want her character questioned. So he took both the blame and the responsibility. The only act which might surpass this declaration of brotherly love is perhaps him dying to protect her. At the cost of his good name, the happiness of his own marriage and the constant moral guilt he would feel at lying to a child and seeing him belittled, Ned decided that Lyanna's character trumped all. So no, he is in no way poking an inch at their bond. He is protecting her good name and reputation from those who would never be willing to understand that maybe, just maybe humans are capable of profound, often inconvenient attachments that are essentially the beauty of any tragedy.

It is inconceivable and frankly deeply disturbing to my mind that anyone sane would look at his sacrifice and have the audacity to say “He didn’t do enough for Lyanna.”

Ned did more than enough for Lyanna. Perhaps not as she would have wanted, maybe even without understanding her motivation, but that is telling of the lengths to which some men are willing to go for those they truly love.    

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> I am so fucking pissed right now.


	8. The Drain

There are some things in this world, which no matter how much I see of, I still get baffled at the sight and a bit frightened. Not the kind of hide-under-the-bed fear. It's more the what-am-I-letting-happen horror that slowly seeps in and takes over, a droplet at a time. And it's draining. To be completely honest, there are days when I just look at my fellow man and feel defeated. I want to sit down and cry. I know it will solve nothing. I know it will annoy others. But I feel powerless and I don't really know what to do. This however, is only secondary at present to the issue I want to put forth.

Some of you may disagree, as such things usually are disagreed with, but keep in mind this is just an opinion. _All feelings are equal; all facts are not._ To put it as succinctly as possible: facts are measures on a true-false scale, while feelings cannot be measured with any objective scale. They can be assessed as "existing", but their intensity is never anything more than what the subject allows. An example, if I may: if you fall down and I ask you: "Does it hurt?", some will answer "No, it doesn't," others may say "Yes, it hurts a bit," while a third category might say, "It hurts a lot." Let's assume the fall is the same, a scraped knee its result. Pain is felt on a spectrum, as all other feelings, therefore, even if I myself take a fall to assess which of the three answers is most accurate, I will only come back confirming something that is individually true, not universally true or even generally true. With facts however, it's a bit different. Let us take what would construe a fact: "Mary went to the shops." Now this is either true, as in Mary did go to the shops or false, Mary either did not go or went somewhere else. Factually truth can only have these two values. If you want to make a point that Mary did go somewhere, that is all good and well, but it's not factually relevant to asserting the truth of the matter. 

With characters of any sort, it's a similar situations. Opinions of readers are "feelings", we feel a certain way about certain characters, whether we identify with them, agree with their actions, disagree with them, or hate them, as it were. And our feelings are justified on certain facts. Now I would like to say that not all facts are the same, as in certain not everything is fact. For example: "Daenerys is a good leader," is surprisingly not a fact. It is an assertion, may be held as an opinion, but should be validated by facts, as it in itself is meaningless outside of context. What makes Daenerys a good leader? What are the facts that lead one to forming this opinion and not another opinion? If you are seeking to debate facts, you should look at actions, causes and results, together. Not separately. Mind, you can look at them separately, but you are ulimately going to get an incomplete view. Think about it like baking: your opinion should be the cake. Now cake is make up of ingredients e.g. flour (facts), sugar (cause), eggs (result) etc. Put them all together and bake them (process them through your own filters) and you get your cake.

But what if I were to ask you: point me to the eggs in your cake, would you be able to do so once your cake is baked? Of course, you know they are there. You know what they are and can expound on them at lengths. But can you separate them to a degree where the other two are inconsequential? 

Opinions must be validated by fact to actually hold worth beyond their title of opinion. Otherwise, anyone can have an opinion; and everyone should have opinions because it means interaction with the world is functioning to some degree. If you were to say "Daenerys is a good leader", but the results of her actions would point to a different conclusion, one could say "Well, actually she is not." And that would be valid, without being complete though. Human action is very complex as humans themselves will often go through intricate mental processes to reach a conclusion. So, maybe Dany is not a good leader, but she has good intentions and her cause is somewhat justified/justifiable. Does that invalidate the fact that she is not a good leader? No. But it brings nuance to the discussion and if you really want to do complex characters justice, nuance is needed. Otherwise it is a disingenuous at best argument.

Okay, so what happens when two divergent opinions meet? I am talking about well-baked cakes here. People like to confirm their own beliefs. They like it so much they can actually create cults around it. And that is to a degree natural. Because what happens in the human mind is this, put very simply: 1) I have an opinion which I hold as correct; 2) the adversary is incorrect; 3) my opponent is being ignorant; 4) when failing to convince the opponent, it's because obviously they are a bad, bad person (yes, this is sarcasm) who seeks to undermine your own opinion with intentionally fallaciously fashioned arguments; 5) any rhetoric becomes justifiable - because well, it would take a saint to debate Hitler rationally (although it would be so funny, I'd probably die laughing).

Of course, each opponent will feel attacked as a result, because not having our opinions confirmed frustrates us. It's a good thing when it raises genuine questions. It's not a good thing when it gives way to sophistry. Is this always intentional? Nope. I don't know whether people even realise when they are doing it or only take notice of it in retrospective. But it takes balls to admit to being wrong and that maybe your opponent is human and will have their own opinions.

And boy, was I wrong. Not in my opinion. Just in the belief that my opinion will have its facts interpreted the same. Well, it was not, and I was duly frustrated. Mind, i still hold that Ned is not a bad person, that his wrongs are understandable; what they are not perhaps is justifiable. Morality is a many-facet issue and different people prioritise different values. And you know what, I still strongly disagree with the sentiment that Ned is some sort of "hidden-evil-parading-as-good-only-seeming-good-because-we-don't-take-this-and-this-and-this-into-account". Is a good deed less good because some of its repercussions hurt "feelings"? My personal opinion is that it's not the case. The thing is, people's "feelings" can be hurt by trivialities. So what? The world won't stop, the sun will still shine and opinions will remain highly debatable.

So, if anyone can point to the to a well-baked "evil Ned" cake, I'll take a bite. But mind you have your facts on you. Because simply saying "Ned is wrong because he hurts other people's feelings" is not something anyone rationalising matters will accept. Ned is wrong because he lied, although the causes, I feel, mitigate much of it, if Jon is Lyanna's.

Anyway, I hope this explains a tad better my position and intent.  


	9. Followups with some very general information regarding gender roles in society

Provided links lead to easily understandable information regarding gender paradigms, because there seemed to be some confusion regarding whose responsibility is what exactly with Ned-Jon-the rest of the fam situation. The discussion/speech are from individuals actively involved in the study of such matters, not necessarily as professionals. Check with available sources on these matters:

Prof. Gad Saad of John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal (w/ Sargon of Akkad): [Evolutionary Psychology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lQNBpFQ3N0)

Karen Straughan: [A Bit of History](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qnRyVUeDqI)

The material provided extends over a period of three hours put together and if you want to look further into details, each of these individuals have their own pages where problems are discussed.

With this, I've done more than enough, I think. Those who want knowledge should seek it out for themselves.


	10. On why base your fucking argumets on logic

Alright so I’ve been thinking a bit about the Catelyn-conversation I recently had with a fellow reader and I’ve had a bit of time to cool down and look at this from a more detached position. Hindsight is best-sight after all. Without going through the whole mental process, I’ll resume to saying the following: I understand perfectly well why Catelyn reacted to Jon as she did. In the socio-political climate of a medieval-like state, Jon is a danger to Robb, a real threat, even if he does not necessarily wish to harm him. Catelyn understands that, as evidenced by her worry that Jon would take over after Robb’s death.

However, just because I understand ‘why’, doesn’t not mean I’ll excuse the behaviour. After all, I understand why some people cheat on their partners, but that does not mean I personally condone it. I understand why cults attract members, but again that does not mean I condone it. To put it simply, the biological wiring responsible for the gut-reaction of one’s own does not make it acceptable behaviour. For example, humans, both male and female, are (generally speaking) wired to seek out as many sexual partners as possible. But, for the most part, we don’t go around sleeping with everything that walks, do we? Same thing for Catelyn’s situation. Once she understood Jon himself did not wish harm of his ‘brother’, it would have served her best to foster a warm climate with the boy, if only to keep bitterness from growing between them. Biology is altered by the psyche. It doesn’t go away, but just because I’m wired to sleep with as many men as possible, doesn’t mean I ‘have to’. Just because Catelyn is wired to be distrustful of Jon, doesn’t mean she has to. It’s a choice. And choices can at times be inadequate.

As for the argument that Jon was not hurt by Catelyn’s actions, as she never physically harmed him; I would just like to point out that statistically speaking orphaned children growing up in orphanages seem to be more inclined towards criminal behaviour of the petty kind, something that can be seen in so called ‘neglected’ children as well. I’ll leave it to you to figure out a possible linking element between these two affirmations. (Clue: attention-seeking)

What Catelyn does, is the equivalent of the following: A’s brother, B, steals D’s crayon. D punches A in the face.

Yes. That solved the problem brilliantly.

There seems to be a case of relativism as pertaining to morality. I’m sorry to tell you, immoral behaviour is still immoral no matter how you sugar-coat it. To say that Catelyn’s actions are somehow not that bad because for example the Mountain crushes Elia’s skull, is to say that, a theft is not that bad because a murder took place somewhere else. They are both bad. Just different types of bad. Yes, it’s on a spectrum, but we human beings have this wonderful capacity of processing more than just one thing. We can be equally appalled at the mother abusing her child and at the rapist down the block.

Anyway, to anyone under the impression that two wrongs somehow justify a third wrong, that is not how this works. You try justifying something like that in court and see where it lands you.

P.S. THIS does not mean I think Catelyn is the ‘literal devil, literally’. But she has her failings. But, and this is IMPORTANT, she is an excellent mother to her children and a good wife; moreover she’s an intelligent woman, capable and responsible. It’s just that her treatment of Jon is not right. To compare, just look at Walder Frey’s brood.          


	11. Rhaegar is a white supermacist??????????????????????????????????????????????

So, legit question has been placed:

wut

 

Let's review what we know:

>Rhaegar left Elia for Lyanna

> Targs are white

Rhaegar is a Nazi confirmed! It all makes sense now.


	12. A Biological Argument Against Lyanna Being TKOLT

 

 

 

 

 

 

The (un)Plumed Helmet

 

Having tackled the topic before, I recently came upon the end result of a brief analysis of the knight of the laughing tree as pertaining to the tenet suggesting Lyanna Stark as a likely candidate. What this piece seeks to do is go through the material once again and possibly delve a bit deeper into a few important points. **This is, I must insist, simply an opinion.**

I will start out by point a few facts about the context and the participants:

1\. Lyanna was a 14 year old girl at the time of the tourney

2\. she was skilled at horse riding and able to defeat her younger brother, Benjen, when they were children in mock combat

3\. she ran at rings (presumably uttered by Martin during an interview. I do not yet have a credible source for it-but it is widely accepted in the community)

4\. she made three squires flee with a tourney sword

5\. she rescued Howland Reed

6\. Lyanna was a noblewoman and (likely) looked the part

7\. Howland Reed is described as a "man grown" in Meera's story. That would make him 16 age-wise or older

8\. Howland refused Benjen's offer of an armour

9\. Eddard offered Howland the use of his own tent

10\. the mystery knight appeared on the second day of the tourney

Let us take a look at the sequence of events regarding Lyanna's intervention on Howland's part: _"The she-wolf laid into the squires with a tourney sword, scattering them all. The crannogman was bruised and bloodied, so she took him back to her lair to clean his cuts and bind them up with linen."_ (ASOS, Ch.24)

In full: _"The little crannogman was walking across the field, enjoying the warm spring day and harming none, when he was set upon by three squires. They were none older than fifteen, yet even so they were bigger than him, all three. This was their world, as they saw it, and he had no right to be there. They snatched away his spear and knocked him to the ground, cursing him for a frogeater._

_None offered a name, but he marked their faces well so he could revenge himself upon them later. They shoved him down every time he tried to rise, and kicked him when he curled up on the ground. But then they heard a roar. 'That's my father's man you're kicking, howled the she-wolf._

_Two. The she-wolf laid into the squires with a tourney sword, scattering them all. The crannogman was bruised and bloodied, so she took him back to her lair to clean his cuts and bind them up with linen. There he met her pack brothers: the wild wolf who led them, the quiet wolf beside him, and the pup who was youngest of the four."_ (ASOS, Ch. 24)

 

A quick glimpse allows the reader to determine that there is a lack of detail to speak of. That being said, from the bare minimum the understanding seems to be that Lyanna used a tourney sword to get rid of Howland's attackers. It is never mentioned that they fought back or tried to incapacitate her. These are, I would point out, men who are all bigger and stronger than her and could easily fell her in combat. Why run instead?

I propose a two-fold reason, with emphasis on the second: Lyanna is obviously female and she is obviously noble. Now simply being a female might have earned her a more radical response from the squires, and they could have used violence against her if she lacked a title, although it is not certain. As for the second point, her being from the nobility, it is quite clear that squires are beneath ladies in the medieval hierarchy. Hurting her would have meant more than simple chastisement from their knights. Where you add that the Starks are not petty nobility, but high nobility. Therefore, it is not unthinkable to assume that they simply did not oppose her out of a sense of self-preservation.

Her feat with the sword is understandable from previous knowledge we have on her. Namely that she fought mock battles with her younger brother. What one should account for here is that human development is different through the teenage years of females and males certain characteristics, that is to say in their early teenage years females are taller than males and, depending on the age difference, may be stronger as well. Therefore that Lyanna, the older sibling, managed to win these matches is not something that indicative even beyond a reasonable doubt that she is highly skilled as a swordfighter. It is, at best, telling of her interest in these matters.

Interested does not equate skill. One may also add that Eddard's words to Arya imply that Lyanna was not allowed to practice her skill even if she did have a talent for it. And simple talent, we know, is not necessarily enough to make one a great warrior.

Of course, she had the advantage of those three squires and, yes, squires are not full-fledged knights, but at the same time that does not prove, beyond doubt, that they were somehow Lyanna's inferiors in skill. After all, Jaime was fifteen when he was knighted, and he received that on account of his skills. Arthur Dayne was impressed, one would assume, and presumably, as a highly skilled fighter himself, he was capable of judging whether and if Jaime Lannister merited his attention. So age is not particularly important to the assertion of the existence of a set of skills. It is, however, important when you account for the polishing of those skills.

I hope no one wants to contest that men were trained from very early ages to wield weapons and participate even in mock-fights such as jousts. However, even without training, men simply are more powerful and swifter than women. Sure, you do sometimes get exceptions such as Madge Mormont and her oldest daughter, Brienne of Tarth and Yara Greyjoy. But these women are a) highly-trained individuals and b)I possession of characteristics that allow them to close the gap between males and females strength-wise.

It is somewhat doubtful that our 14-year-old Lyanna was quite as strong and highly-trained as any of these women. As pointed out before, Ned's claim to Arya disproves the notion. And to suggest that she could make it on talent alone is frankly laughable. So all other prominent jousters enjoy success only after years of training, and if they do enter the lists unprepared they find themselves swiftly defeated; but, Lyanna. Oh, she's different.

She is different, to be sure. But short of claiming her to be some manner of _stronk independent knight who don't need no training,_ she is nowhere near different enough to win a joust, her first, mind, on talent alone! For heaven's sake, I can understand beginner's luck on the first knight. But second? The third too? Really?

It must be the power of vagina. Of course. That makes all the sense!

I have other reasons to doubt she is the knight, don't worry. Beyond my clearly internalised misogyny, I have some _facts_ about jousting which puts a bit of a crimp in this ludicrous theory.

What is a joust?

A joust is by design meant to simulate a mounted charge. One [source ](http://www.fscclub.com/history/joust-e.shtml)describes it as: _Jousting is a martial game or hastilude between two horsemen and using lances, often as part of a tournament. The primary aim is to strike the opponent with the lance while riding towards him at high speed, if possible breaking the lance on the opponent's shield or armor, or by unhorsing him. The medieval joust has its origins in the military tactics of heavy cavalry during the High Middle Ages. These became obsolete during the 14th century, and from the 15th century on, jousting became a sport (hastilude) without direct relevance to warfare. Jousts were arranged by heralds according to the strictest ritual, and differed little if at all in different countries._

From the first, Lyanna is severely disadvantaged. She very likely never received formal training in the art of jousting. Why? Well, it's not necessarily because all men were disgusting misogynist pigs. Shocking, I know. It likely had more to do with the inherent danger associated with jousting.

As noted from contemporary sources, many a death surfeited by lance in jousting duels. I will bring up this example _:" in France, it [jousting] was discontinued after the death of king Henry II in an accident in 1559 the king suffered a mortal head wound from a lance fragment and died from septicemia._

Just to underline, jousting was violent and dangerous and considering that at one point defeating one's enemy was rewarded with said competitor's horse, armour and lance, it is no wonder women were at a slight disadvantage. It is well known that even in trained individuals, males and females retain serious differences regarding their physical capacities, as demonstrated by the Marine Corps ([source](http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-in-marines-infantry-experiment/)).

_The Marine Corps' data findings included the following:_

_All-male squads and teams outperformed those that included women showed higher performance levels than gender-integrated ones on 69 percent of the 134 ground combat tasks evaluated._

_All-male teams were outperformed by mixed-gender teams on two tasks: accuracy in firing the 50-caliber machine gun in traditional rifleman units and the same skill in provisional units. Researchers did not know why gender-mixed teams did better on these skills, but said the advantage did not persist when the teams continued on to movement-under-load exercises. Gender-integrated teams did out-perform all-male ones in two tasks:_

_All-male squads in every infantry job were faster than mixed-gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement evaluated. The differences between the teams were most pronounced in crew-served weapons teams. Those teams that had to carry weapons and ammunition in addition to their individual combat loads._

_Male-only rifleman squads were more accurate than gender-integrated counterparts on each individual weapons system, including the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle and the M203 grenade launcher._

_Even mMale Marines with from the provisional infantry platoon, which had no formal infantry training, outperformed infantry-trained women on each weapons system, at le_ _vels ranging from 11 to 16 percentage points._

So even if Lyanna were trained, men are naturally faster and stronger. This is an advantage to any of her fellow combatants. This is further compounded by the armour she would have to wear and the jousting lance along with the shield.

Now before you start yelling that the armour being heavy is a myth, I suggest looking into the difference between combat armour and jousting armour. For indeed, they are not quite the same thing. As far as I could trace, the jousting armour was far heavier than its combat cousin and meant to absorb the power of the hits. I repeat, _absorb the power of the hits!_ Power.

_Special jousting armour produced in the late 15th to 16th century was heavier, and could weigh as much as 50 kg, as it was not intended for free combat, it did not need to permit free movement, the only limiting factor being the maximum weight that could be carried by a warhorse of the period._

_The medieval joust has its origins in the military tactic heavy cavalry during the High Middle Ages. These became obsolete during the 14th century, and since the 15th century, jousting had become a sport(hastilude) without direct relevance to warfare. During the 1490s, emperor MaximilianI invested a lot of effort into perfecting the sport, for which he received his nickname of "The Last Knight". Rennen and Stechen were two sportive forms of the joust developed during the 15th century and practiced throughout the 16th century. The armours used for these two in particular developed into extremely heavy armour which completely inhibited the movement of the rider, in its latest forms resembling an armour-shaped cabin integrated into the horse armour more than a functional suit of armour. ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour#Effect_on_weapon_development))_

Now that that is out of the way, let us look at the role of the lance: _In order to unhorse an opponent without killing him or causing extreme injury, the lance was fitted with a blunt coronal, which is a little ball, instead of a sharp tip that was fitted for war._ Among its attributes, of course is the weight, according to this [source](http://historyblognoahflack1.blogspot.ro/2014/05/the-knights-training-lance-quintain.html), a jousting lance weighed _typically [...] about 50 kilograms or about 110 pounds._ It could be the case that GRRM's Westeros uses hollowed lances, which are somewhat lighter, but still, the sheer effort to maintain your balance with such impressive weight cannot have been easily surpassed by a 14-year-old in mismatched armour.

I can buy a boy managing it, but only if we are so speaking about a physically strong boy or, if not impressively strong, at least trained. I could easily understand a squire doing it, as he a) has previous experience with armour-wearing and riding whiled weighed down and b) has directed a lance before in at least some simulation of jousting (quintain/pavo, as that is called). While a boy (biology, recall?) would not find the sheer weight so daunting to deal with, I imagine even he would have a difficult time of winning the actual jousts (as evidenced by Selmy).

Basically what I hear when people say Lyanna is likely to have been the knight, is this: sure, a 14 y.o. girl can totally best grown trained men. Totally. Makes perfect sense.

Are you for real?

**That being said, it is still possible for her to have been the knight.**

Martin can certainly do what he wants and if he wanted Lyanna to be a female knight, she'll be a female knight. But do not delude yourselves into thinking you can make a credible argument for Lyanna being the knight on biological grounds. And history in on my side:  _First of all, it is obvious that women's jousting or similar tourney style contests were not unknown in Middle Ages, at least in imagination of some people. It is also not impossible that female commoners didn't hesitate to bring distaffs into play when fighting and brawling, while medieval illustrators (mostly monks) humanized those fights depicting them as chivalrous duels. A less plausible suggestion is that ladies sometimes engaged in real tourney jousting, perhaps, those who were familiar with warfare. As it was said, many manuscript makers might consider women fighting with combat weapons as improper, so they armed the contestant with distaffs instead of lances or spears. ([source](http://www.fscclub.com/history/joust-e.shtml)) _

If an upcoming chapter I will look at what seem to me psychological barriers against Lyanna being the knight.

 

 

 

 

 

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> Note: this is an OPINION.


End file.
